Courtney v. State

Court
Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware C.A. No.
S16M-07-013

Before
HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices

ORDER

Karen
L. Valihura Justice

This
15th day of March 2017, having considered the
appellant's opening brief and the appellee's motion
to affirm, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The
appellant, Mark F. Courtney, filed this appeal from the
Superior Court's order dated July 20, 2016, denying his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The State of Delaware
has moved to affirm the Superior Court's judgment on the
ground that it is manifest on the face of the opening brief
that the appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.

(2) On
June 19, 2013, Courtney pled guilty to Child Pornography and
Possession of Child Pornography and was sentenced to a total
of eighteen years of Level V incarceration suspended after
three years and successful completion of the Family Problems
Program (now known as Transitions Sex Offender Program) for
decreasing levels of supervision.[1] Since his sentencing in
2013, Courtney has written to the Superior Court numerous
times, complaining that he has not been placed in the sex
offender program.

(3) In
response to a letter submitted in November 2014, the Superior
Court judge who presided over Courtney's guilty plea and
sentencing issued a letter order advising Courtney:

The Department of Corrections has advised that you have
received 6 write ups in 2014. Therefore, you are not eligible
for classification into the program until your behavior
improves. I suggest you think about the consequences of your
actions. I shall not reward you for repetitive negative
behavior. To the extent you are seeking a modification of
sentence, it is denied.[2]

In
letter orders issued after that, the judge advised Courtney
that the Department of Correction is responsible for
determining when an offender can be classified to a
program.[3] And in October 2015, the judge issued a
letter order advising Courtney that when the Department of
Correction has determined that he has completed the
court-ordered program, he will have satisfied the unsuspended
Level V portion of his sentence.[4]

(4) On
July 19, 2016, Courtney filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. Courtney claimed that he was being unlawfully
detained at Level V because the Department of Correction had
not granted him access to the sex offender program within the
first three years of his sentence. By order dated July 20,
2016, the Superior Court denied the petition after
determining that Courtney had not completed the sex offender
program because of his "repetitive, negative behavior,
" and that he was not being illegally detained. This
appeal followed.

(5)
Under Delaware law, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief
on a limited basis.[5] After a judgment of conviction and the
imposition of sentence, habeas corpus relief is available
only to ensure that the prisoner is being held under a
legally valid commitment issued by a court of competent
jurisdiction.[6] Habeas corpus is not used "to explore
the reasons for classification within the prison system in
any of its programs."[7]

(6)
Courtney does not question the Superior Court's subject
matter jurisdiction over the charged offenses or the
court's authority to accept his guilty plea and to impose
sentence. Courtney's sentence requires that he
successfully complete the Transitions Sex Offender Program,
which he has not done. Courtney continues to be held under
that valid commitment. The Court concludes that the Superior
Court's summary denial of habeas corpus relief was
correct.

NOW,
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to
affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.